Carbon Tax: good or bad?

[trtcttc]

As many have mentioned, the policy is a complete failure. We are falling in the same trap as Europe where they overtax their industry and people and essentially let American and Chinese imports destroy their economy. This government is naive in thinking that the effort to move to net zero in Canada will make any difference to our climate and wilde fires and melting nordic ice. Getting off coal and heating oil is a good choice but there is no realistic alternative to gas in our climate. Even if you install a heat pump, gas is still needed for most of the winter. Gas, while not net zero is one of the cleaner way to heat homes, moving from coal to gas has essentially driven the entirety of the reduction in emissions from the US in the last 20 years.

Instead of endless fights about more taxes, at a time when Canadians are already stretched thin, we should be investing. Investing in developing better furnaces, building EV charging infrastructure, and things that will actually make a difference. Collecting a carbon tax to pay it back to people thinking they’ll drive behaviour change is only possible when there are alternative choices people can actually make. There is no alternative to heating with gas in Calgary, and buying an EV with the current battery chemistry in cold weather climates is very limiting.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

buying an EV with the current battery chemistry in cold weather climates is very limiting.

This is simply not true. I've been an EV driver since 2012 and am on my third EV (Volt, Ioniq 5, and Model Y) current battery chemistry is more than sufficient. I drive to Sunshine and Fernie in the winter with no issues.

The Carbon Tax isn't why I went to an EV, the economics made sense to me pretty early on. I get people think they just can't replace your gas car but for most people they can. The problem is you need the money up front to make an EV make sense as you need to buy new or nearly new to get into an EV, a lot of people can't afford that.

 

[trtcttc]

This is simply not true. I've been an EV driver since 2012 and am on my third EV (Volt, Ioniq 5, and Model Y) current battery chemistry is more than sufficient. I drive to Sunshine and Fernie in the winter with no issues.

The Carbon Tax isn't why I went to an EV, the economics made sense to me pretty early on. I get people think they just can't replace your gas car but for most people they can. The problem is you need the money up front to make an EV make sense as you need to buy new or nearly new to get into an EV, a lot of people can't afford that.

I was actually looking at getting an EV because I loved how quiet, fast, and the simple interior of a Tesla, but we ended up settling on a PHEV (still waiting). We are a one vehicle household and an EV just didn't really make sense. There's obvious gaps like the lack of a supercharger between Canmore and Jasper. It's doable, but limits your ability to stop in between and if it's very cold outside. There's destination chargers and non-Tesla chargers but from my experience, you can't rely on a non-Tesla as the only charger without a backup. There's another gap going East to Drumheller and basically any route that isn't on HWY 1. I haven't driven an EV in Calgary but my previous experience in Ontario, the charging infrastructure is already stretched thin. Unless you own a SFH (which are less and less common and come with their own emission issues), apartments and public charging just isn't sufficient to support a huge number of EVs. Popular superchargers often have waits of 30 mins + before you even start charging.

Not to mention if you drive an EV in Alberta, the electricity still mostly come from gas. Industrial plants are probably more efficient than an ICE but if we move more people to hybrids it's make much more of a difference in total emissions by decreasing the total consumption of fossil fuels. Instead, the current subsidies are basically for well off people that probably aren't swayed by $5000 anyways.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I was actually looking at getting an EV because I loved how quiet, fast, and the simple interior of a Tesla, but we ended up settling on a PHEV (still waiting). We are a one vehicle household and an EV just didn't really make sense. There's obvious gaps like the lack of a supercharger between Canmore and Jasper. It's doable, but limits your ability to stop in between and if it's very cold outside. There's destination chargers and non-Tesla chargers but from my experience, you can't rely on a non-Tesla as the only charger without a backup. There's another gap going East to Drumheller and basically any route that isn't on HWY 1. I haven't driven an EV in Calgary but my previous experience in Ontario, the charging infrastructure is already stretched thin. Unless you own a SFH (which are less and less common and come with their own emission issues), apartments and public charging just isn't sufficient to support a huge number of EVs. Popular superchargers often have waits of 30 mins + before you even start charging.

Not to mention if you drive an EV in Alberta, the electricity still mostly come from gas. Industrial plants are probably more efficient than an ICE but if we move more people to hybrids it's make much more of a difference in total emissions by decreasing the total consumption of fossil fuels. Instead, the current subsidies are basically for well off people that probably aren't swayed by $5000 anyways.

100%, hybrids and PHEV are the solution. The wait list for both are absolutely insane. I know someone who has waited 14+ months for Prius.

 

[darwink]

and an EV just didn't really make sense

Yeah, for now.

I think a big thing in these debates is people seem to think because something doesn't work now, or isn't adopted now, that that will never be the case.

The goal is net zero by 2050. A shift to only hybrids and zero emission vehicles being sold new by 2035.

The carbon tax is all about incenting you to make the choice when it makes sense for you to make the choice. For some people that is today. For some it will be 2049. Both are fine. All while incentivizing the lower emission choices without removing purchasing power from the economy.

We are falling in the same trap as Europe where they overtax their industry and people and essentially let American and Chinese imports destroy their economy.

Large emitters due to commonly being trade exposed are subject to an entirely different carbon regime than consumers.

I think it is pretty easy to equate the misguided Ontario electricity policy of 2008ish which was partly based on misguided German electricity policy of 2000ish with Canada wide policy of 2023 despite the vastly different contexts. I think it is also pretty easy to vastly overinflate the federal clean electricity regulations since the title of the policy is way more ambitious than the policy itself.

 

[trtcttc]

Yeah, for now.

I think a big thing in these debates is people seem to think because something doesn't work now, or isn't adopted now, that that will never be the case.

The goal is net zero by 2050. A shift to only hybrids and zero emission vehicles being sold new by 2035.

The carbon tax is all about incenting you to make the choice when it makes sense for you to make the choice. For some people that is today. For some it will be 2049. Both are fine. All while incentivizing the lower emission choices without removing purchasing power from the economy.

I think we are doing it in the wrong order. We're starting with we want all vehicles sold in 2035 to be EVs and we're going to levy a carbon tax today for everyone. For all the reasons I mentioned, a EV just isn't possible for many single car households. For those people, their only option is to pay more because a comparable product just isn't available. The tax is also regressive because poorer people are more likely to have older vehicles which are not EVs and burn more fuel. I think a tax that will actually drive behaviour is charge a carbox tax on car purchases based on fuel economy for each vehicle class. This will drive future purchase decisions and most importantly manufacturers to keep building greener vehicles.

 

[darwink]

only to discover that it only provides benefit in the shoulder seasons. He still uses natural gas in the winter.

So I went and downloaded the last 12and 2/3rds months of temperature data to see. I think we can mostly agree last winter was a quite cold winter, so would be a good winter to measure against.

Even though you can buy heat pumps which still provide efficiency gain at -22'C I set lower thresholds.

Of the 9094 hours, 828 were below -13, 660 below -15. Those hours, either the resistance backup built into the system would provide heat, or backup heat would be needed. You can really see how improving heat pumps makes it easier to implement, at -20', it is only 317 hours.

It is good to note that using backup heat is not a failure. 58% of residential green house gas emissions are from natural gas use, the rest electricity. There are only 3 paths to net zero for that energy use: reduction, substitution, offset.

For electricity we can implement carbon capture and storage which is impractical at the residential level for dark cold hours. So for the rest of household emissions we're left with offset (renewable natural gas, which will be more expensive), or substitution (electrification).

There is no option for choosing 'none'.

 

[trtcttc]

Large emitters due to commonly being trade exposed are subject to an entirely different carbon regime than consumers.

I think it is pretty easy to equate the misguided Ontario electricity policy of 2008ish which was partly based on misguided German electricity policy of 2000ish with Canada wide policy of 2023 despite the vastly different contexts. I think it is also pretty easy to vastly overinflate the federal clean electricity regulations since the title of the policy is way more ambitious than the policy itself.

Unless we're able to shield our industry using supply management (which I don't agree with) it's untenable for us to have a vastly more expensive carbon tax than the US. We compete with them in manufactured goods, natural resources, farm products which are all impacted by the carbon tax. And this isn't specific to carbon tax or the environment. If our labour laws are more restrictive (like Europe) it is hard to compete. We already have a smaller domestic market and the US utilizes their geopolitical clout and buy-america provisions that we can ill afford more self-imposed measures that will simply drive business south and lessen our industrial competitiveness.

 

[darwink]

The tax is also regressive because poorer people are more likely to have older vehicles which are not EVs and burn more fuel.

The carbon tax is progressive

https://twitter.com/x/status/1206962303075110912

 

[darwink]

Unless we're able to shield our industry using supply management (which I don't agree with) it's untenable for us to have a vastly more expensive carbon tax than the US. We compete with them in manufactured goods, natural resources, farm products which are all impacted by the carbon tax. And this isn't specific to carbon tax or the environment. If our labour laws are more restrictive (like Europe) it is hard to compete. We already have a smaller domestic market and the US utilizes their geopolitical clout and buy-america provisions that we can ill afford more self-imposed measures that will simply drive business south and lessen our industrial competitiveness.

Either we can implement even more expensive policies to head towards net-zero or we can choose not too.

There is no waiting indefinitely until the entire world is perfect, while others wait for us to be perfect as well

In any case, is there evidence of carbon leakage?

The government of course is also working on this policy problem.

Exploring Border Carbon Adjustments for Canada - Canada.ca

Exploring Border Carbon Adjustments for Canada

www.canada.ca

 

[Surrealplaces]

We are a one vehicle household and an EV just didn't really make sense.

I looked into it a few years ago, but we don't drive a lot, so it didn't make financial sense at the time. My next car might be an EV, though, we'll see how the economics are.

 

[trtcttc]

I looked into it a few years ago, but we don't drive a lot, so it didn't make financial sense at the time. My next car might be an EV, though, we'll see how the economics are.

The best payoff is probably if you have a 200A home, do a lot of city driving, and don't take off the beaten path trips. Have some friends that work in real estate in Van and literally every realtor drives a Tesla

 

[Surrealplaces]

The best payoff is probably if you have a 200A home, do a lot of city driving, and don't take off the beaten path trips. Have some friends that work in real estate in Van and literally every realtor drives a Tesla

I was just talking about this the other day, as I'm surprised more taxi or Uber drivers don't have EV. They do a lot of driving, you'd think it would pay off quickly.

 

[trtcttc]

I was just talking about this the other day, as I'm surprised more taxi or Uber drivers don't have EV. They do a lot of driving, you'd think it would pay off quickly.

The fleet companies probably just doesn’t want to invest since the vehicles cost considerably more. Uber and Hertz run a Tesla rental program but only in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal

 

[darwink]

I was just talking about this the other day, as I'm surprised more taxi or Uber drivers don't have EV. They do a lot of driving, you'd think it would pay off quickly.

A driver I had in September told me his buddy was picking up a model 3 and the rest of them were going to watch closely. Lower maintenance/'waking' downtime (oil changes) made a big difference for the cost/benefit calculation we bandied about when chatting. He was considering getting a Model X so he could realize savings plus do Uber XL. Otherwise was going to get a plug in hybrid minivan.

The main thing that holds widespread adoption was credit. Only longer term drivers could make the move.